A fleet of Irish armoured vehicles in service for over 45 years is to soldier on for the foreseeable future. French Panhard 4x4 armoured cars first entered service in 1964, when the Defence Forces demanded modern armoured cars after they were forced to fight in home-built 1940s vintage Ford cars in the Congo operation.

Later batches were also bought, including AML-90 vehicles with a powerful 90mm anti-tank gun.

However, when the Defence Forces re-equipped with a €120m fleet of 8x8 Mowag armoured vehicles in recent years, they found that the Panhards could not keep up with the modern vehicles.

Although they served in operations in Cyprus, Lebanon, and Liberia, the Panhards were not taken to Chad or the latest mission in Lebanon.

Now the Army wants vehicle spare parts to keep the Panhard fleet on the road in Ireland. The Panhards were upgraded in the last decade by South African firm Reumech OMC, with new sights and 20mm guns.

Five years ago, outgoing Chief of Staff Lt Gen Jim Sreenan said that the next vehicle equipment priority was to get a replacement for the AML-90 fleet.

However, that now appears to have been shelved for the moment, with more Mowag reconnaissance vehicles bought for the Cavalry Corps instead.

Which are of greater use, the Mowags or the AML-90's, in the big scheme of things?

Goldie fish

13th May 2012, 13:12

They still won't be going overseas any time soon. The "upgrades" made many practically useless.
Well done on a non story from the indo. "army seeks spare parts for a vehicle it uses-shocker".
Shame on you Rhodes for reading the Indo-enemy of the Public Sector worker.

While the AML60 entered service in 1964, the current in-service cars bear only a faint resemblence to that car.
Petrol engine-gone(and with it the whole back end of the car).
60mm Mortar-Gone, replaced with a 20mm upside down gun.
It is unfortunate they didn't upgrade the drivers seat while they were at it.
Its like saying the army still uses the same GPMGs it first got back in Nineteen-smonty smosh.

Goldie fish

13th May 2012, 13:27

Which are of greater use, the Mowags or the AML-90's, in the big scheme of things?

Mowags, definitely. The AML is no longer a realistic defence against enemy armour and its design makes it an ineffective recce car. Crew Fatigue plays a big part in this, though, improved crew helmets has made a difference.
Driver position is only good for 50 miles max. They are of a bygone age. Remember when cars had a single bench seat in front, no reclining, and no seat belt? That generation. Turret drop seats are OK, but the opiscopes were not included in the upgrade.
It is still based on a WW2 design, when the opfor it will encounter will probably be armed to cold war standard.
The Mowag on the other hand provide a modern, fast, comfortable means of armoured transport to its crew and passengers, while still providing them with excellent situational awareness. It has proved itself in Eritrea, Chad, Liberia and of course Lebanon. Apart from the initial complaints about weld cracking (which was rectified in the first batch) we have heard no complaints from its users. The Cav versions also provide a modern, realistic armament for the percieved threat.

Connaught Stranger

13th May 2012, 13:39

However, when the Defence Forces re-equipped with a €120m fleet of 8x8 Mowag armoured vehicles in recent years, they found that the Panhards could not keep up with the modern vehicles.

No mention of the defect in the recoil mechanism of the 90, which caused them to be pulled from service on Health & Safety issues.

Connaught Stranger

Goldie fish

13th May 2012, 14:45

No mention of the defect in the recoil mechanism of the 90, which caused them to be pulled from service on Health & Safety issues.

Connaught Stranger

What defect is that? It works fine when fitters put the right things in the right places.

Connaught Stranger

13th May 2012, 15:26

What defect is that? It works fine when fitters put the right things in the right places.

The defect, as I remember was in the recoil mechanism, causing oil from the recoil mechanism to be sprayed into the compartment, it was a little more serious than just Fitters forgetting to put the right things in the right places.

Connaught Stranger.

Goldie fish

13th May 2012, 15:40

The defect was caused by fitters putting the wrong thing in the wrong places. The oil only escaped because the wrong gas was put in the mechanism. When it couldn't go where it was designed to go, it had to find another route. Result, big flash inside turret, which was actually caught on camera. Gunners helmet was blown off, and is seen flying through the air.

DeV

13th May 2012, 16:26

Which are of greater use, the Mowags or the AML-90's, in the big scheme of things?

Mowags, definitely. The AML is no longer a realistic defence against enemy armour and its design makes it an ineffective recce car.

Depends on what you want it to do?!

If you want fire support to take on enemy light/medium armour, it may be better to have a 90mm

paul g

13th May 2012, 18:42

Depends on what you want it to do?!

If you want fire support to take on enemy light/medium armour, it may be better to have a 90mm

if i had to take on any sort of armour I'd rather be in the MRV than the aml, the mk 44 30mm is light years ahead.

The real Jack

13th May 2012, 18:55

If you want fire support to take on enemy light/medium armour, it may be better to have a 90mm

And if they bad guy has anything more powerful than an AK it'd be better to be in a Mowag.

hptmurphy

13th May 2012, 21:42

Given the engine upgrade could have included a bigger , more powerful engine, and increased the road speed, it would compromise crew safety.

Anyone who has travelled in an AML will tell you that speed on metalled roads is fine but off road the car would be far to unstable.

they have a tendency to roll into corners and once or twice there were reach out and almost touch the ground moments.

The AML 20s gun is as good as useless, the 90 gun to old to be effective against modern armour.Given the have aboslutely no commonality with the tactics currently practised by the Cavalry they really have no place in the PDF.

If they are not suitable for the PDF nor are they suitable for the RDF but the reserve squadrons outside the pale still have AML 90s on charge and while they are well maintained,capable of full filling their original intended role again unless the PDF Cav change their role (again) and the reserve follows they have no credible use.l

They are difficult to maintain, difficult for driver training and of very limited value operationally so why spend money on something that should have been replaced 10 years ago.

GoneToTheCanner

13th May 2012, 21:56

The Brass know exactly what needs to be done, ie, confine the AMLs to a museum and buy Mowag-based 90 or 105mm guns, capable of dealing effectively with at least a T55 or a T-62, much more likely to be found in Africa or the Middle East. If a T72 rocks up, buy more javelins or an SU-25.

regards
GttC

apc

17th May 2012, 13:14

The Brass know exactly what needs to be done, ie, confine the AMLs to a museum and buy Mowag-based 90 or 105mm guns, capable of dealing effectively with at least a T55 or a T-62, much more likely to be found in Africa or the Middle East. If a T72 rocks up, buy more javelins or an SU-25.

regards
GttC

I know the Belgian Mowag/90mm was a political decision, but surely that solution would suit us rather than going down the unproven Mowag/105mm road or buying a completely different chassis.
Have we encountered a situation in the past where we needed something bigger than a 90mm? If we have or will then a Mowag/105mm is not the answer ,we should be looking at something better (MBT) or reassessing our roles.\:)|

Have we encountered a situation in the past where we needed something bigger than a 90mm?

Given our primary overseas commitments have been peace keeping or partcipation in Battle Groups that have their own armoured support 90mm would be sufficent.

Armoured infantry would require IFVs as opposed to APC's the Mowag MRV fulfils this role adequately and could be compared in weapon performance , with the Brdaley being the exceptio being co axially armed with TOW, but with the 25mm Bushmaster chain gun as primary gun system the British using the 30mm gun as the primary weapon system on their IFV.

The army has been tailored toward a specific type of role that does not envisgae have to fight pitched engagements with heavy armour unite...ie MBTs so employment of the 90mm gun is purely a precautionary measure is is available on the AML245 chassis only because we have it in existence rather that having to procure a system that gave the same capability.

Given there is MRV was the system of choice , there will hardly be a secondary requets for anoth variant of the mowag given we have a 90mm gun in service albeit 30 years out of date.

Goldie fish

17th May 2012, 13:58

Don't forget, the 90mm was designed as an anti tank gun. But if you don't get a kill on your first shot, or there is more than one armoured target, its over.
The only effective face to face defence against a tank is another tank.
Not an anti tank gun on a light wheeled AFV.

Flamingo

17th May 2012, 15:05

The only effective face to face defence against a tank is another tank.

Or an Apache

(In your own time, carry on...)

DeV

17th May 2012, 15:38

I suppose it comes down to this - do you want a brigade level asset to be able to have organic fire support ? Eg a troop of LTAVs is engaged by enemy light armour outside the range of artillery?

Goldie fish

17th May 2012, 16:19

If LTAVs are engaged by enemy armour, then the threat assessment was seriously underestimated.
You don't send armoured trucks into an area where you may encounter hostile tanks.

paul g

17th May 2012, 16:42

This type of thread always degenerates into talk about the DF's need to engage with tanks, without pointing out that fighting tanks, even overseas is the least likely senario for the defence forces. .

The simple fact is that the defence forces will operate in the future as part of a western coalition, essentially with overwhelming air power, and the bad guys have worked out from experience since 1991 that their tanks will be attacked from the air and destroyed before they come in range of western ground forces, hence why over the past twenty or so years they moved onto the "technicals", you see in every third world country that are mobile and easier to camoflage from air power.

Thats largely why most european counties have abandoned their tank fleets, Belgium and the Netherlands combined operated over a thousand MBT during the cold war but have now phased them all out.

As for the mowag with the 90mm belgium uses and the Stryker mobile gun system, neither are sucessful, the Stryker MGS still is rated as deficient and has not gone into full rate production, while the belgium buy of 90mm armed mowags has been capped at 18 instead of the planned for 40, and they are being offered for sale soon. And its important to remember that neither were designed as anti tank vehicles, they're both there to provide support to infantry units, to engage machine gun nests and bunkers and the like.

Now if you look at the defence forces annual report and the like, where they list the forces for overseas the combat units offered are an infantry battalion, a reconnaissance unit and an artillery battery.

The reconnaissance unit in question is the istar company for the Battlegroup, and the MRV serve that role very well.

Which leaves us with the infantry battalion. Now if we look at the standard british infantry battalion, they've restructured their support company on deployments to Afghanistan and have combined the sniper and reconnaissance platoon into a patrols unit and their anti tank and machine gun platoons into a fire support group, with about nine landrover WMIK/jackals mounted with GMG 40mm AGL and 12.7mm HMG and a Javelin in the back.

if you look at the Reconnaissance company in the unifil battalion, with the CRV in the cavalry troop, and the LTAVS in Javelin platoon, you've got something similar evolving.

As for why they're keeping on the AML 90, there is a need for medium armour and a direct fire support capability, but the two wars over the past decade have sent everybody back to the drawing board to rethink their requirements, and there will be a load of new projects around 2016 bearing fruit, such as the British FRES and the French Scorpion, and they'll be able to make a better informed decision then.

Flamingo

17th May 2012, 17:40

Just out of interest, has the army ever deployed anywhere where having to take on tanks was a realistic scenario?

Would it have been more than a possibility that Israeli MBT's would have been taken on in the Leb, for example?

Aidan

17th May 2012, 17:56

The only potential place recently that I can think of was Chad (in the unlikely scenario where the Sudan tried to push into eastern Chad using armour). It would have been highly unlikely that UNIFIL forces would have ever had to engage Israeli forces directly (other armed elements perhaps).

As Paul pointed out, most European countries don't figure on having to fight tanks and particularly modern ones in the open any time soon. That said, there is a potential role for a large caliber gun in terms of reducing fortifications and obstacles but that doesn't really justify such a purchase any time soon either. Short to medium term replacement for the AMLs is obviously more MRVs - long term, who knows?

DeV

17th May 2012, 19:48

If LTAVs are engaged by enemy armour, then the threat assessment was seriously underestimated.
You don't send armoured trucks into an area where you may encounter hostile tanks.

What if the enemy has light armoured recce? For example, Scorpion or the like.

Battle is fluid!

This type of thread always degenerates into talk about the DF's need to engage with tanks, without pointing out that fighting tanks, even overseas is the least likely senario for the defence forces. .

The simple fact is that the defence forces will operate in the future as part of a western coalition, essentially with overwhelming air power, and the bad guys have worked out from experience since 1991 that their tanks will be attacked from the air and destroyed before they come in range of western ground forces, hence why over the past twenty or so years they moved onto the "technicals", you see in every third world country that are mobile and easier to camoflage from air power.

Thats largely why most european counties have abandoned their tank fleets, Belgium and the Netherlands combined operated over a thousand MBT during the cold war but have now phased them all out.

As for the mowag with the 90mm belgium uses and the Stryker mobile gun system, neither are sucessful, the Stryker MGS still is rated as deficient and has not gone into full rate production, while the belgium buy of 90mm armed mowags has been capped at 18 instead of the planned for 40, and they are being offered for sale soon. And its important to remember that neither were designed as anti tank vehicles, they're both there to provide support to infantry units, to engage machine gun nests and bunkers and the like.

Now if you look at the defence forces annual report and the like, where they list the forces for overseas the combat units offered are an infantry battalion, a reconnaissance unit and an artillery battery.

The reconnaissance unit in question is the istar company for the Battlegroup, and the MRV serve that role very well.

Which leaves us with the infantry battalion. Now if we look at the standard british infantry battalion, they've restructured their support company on deployments to Afghanistan and have combined the sniper and reconnaissance platoon into a patrols unit and their anti tank and machine gun platoons into a fire support group, with about nine landrover WMIK/jackals mounted with GMG 40mm AGL and 12.7mm HMG and a Javelin in the back.

if you look at the Reconnaissance company in the unifil battalion, with the CRV in the cavalry troop, and the LTAVS in Javelin platoon, you've got something similar evolving.

As for why they're keeping on the AML 90, there is a need for medium armour and a direct fire support capability, but the two wars over the past decade have sent everybody back to the drawing board to rethink their requirements, and there will be a load of new projects around 2016 bearing fruit, such as the British FRES and the French Scorpion, and they'll be able to make a better informed decision then.

I never said anything about tanks! The DF is a light infantry based force with mininal fire support. That fire support in the past has consisted of cavalry light armour and light artillery.

There have been a number of situations where battle groups could have been deployed and yet they haven't been, nor AFAIK have their been any calls from them to be. Due to the financial situation this country is likely to continue to suffer for the next 5-10 years, it is unlikely that Ireland will become involved in non-UN blue beret missions (eg KFOR, EUFOR etc). Therefore it will be UN missions like UNIFIL. Western coalitions don't like getting involved in them historically (and especially since UNPROFOR)!

Just look at how hard it was for the might of NATO to find Serb armour when it was given permission to engage in both Bosnia and Kosovo.

I'm not suggesting MBTs or even a 105mm armed vehicle. 90mm is enough IMHO, why?

http://www.military.ie/army/organisation/army-corps/cavalry

Look at the strategic vision - The Cavalry Corps will continue to develop, sustain and deliver effective, flexible and appropriate Combat Support resources to the Defence Forces to ensure that it has sufficient.......armoured reconnaissance and direct fire support capabilities

In my view, something around 90mm is required in order to give direct fire support when required both to Cavalry and Infantry units. They are more flexible than the likes of Javelin (and a lot cheaper!). It is exactly the likes of fixed positions and light armour that they would engage.

Recce and artillery aren't combat units, they are combat support. That unit is 80 strong, the Irish element of the battlegroup is a lot higher than that.

The Brits are using Scimitar at Battalion level in Afghanistan

Just out of interest, has the army ever deployed anywhere where having to take on tanks was a realistic scenario?

Would it have been more than a possibility that Israeli MBT's would have been taken on in the Leb, for example?

The only potential place recently that I can think of was Chad (in the unlikely scenario where the Sudan tried to push into eastern Chad using armour). It would have been highly unlikely that UNIFIL forces would have ever had to engage Israeli forces directly (other armed elements perhaps).

As Paul pointed out, most European countries don't figure on having to fight tanks and particularly modern ones in the open any time soon. That said, there is a potential role for a large caliber gun in terms of reducing fortifications and obstacles but that doesn't really justify such a purchase any time soon either. Short to medium term replacement for the AMLs is obviously more MRVs - long term, who knows?

The Dutch fired TOWs (as warning shots I think) at DFF MBTs in Lebanon in the early days.

Goldie fish

17th May 2012, 20:19

The Dutch fired TOW warning shots at Super Shermans during the Battle of At-Tiri.
The 30mm is as good for fire support as the 90mm in a modern conflict, and can keep more heads down. The AML 90 as a direct fire gun had a relatively limited range.
You are really into whataboutery now though.
Think of the combat history of the vehicle. I'd say the only combat kill the type saw, worldwide, was At Tiri. The Argies had them in 1982, they may have suited the Junta for intimidating its opressed population at home and in the falklands, but by june, they were parked up in Stanley, after being outflanked by the Superior mobility offroad of the Scorps and Scimitar of the Blues and Royals.
The gun was fine in the 50s, when nobody had things like thermal imaging, stabilised guns, smart ammo, active armour, and most importantly "dry" turrets. I imagine it is bad for one's blood pressure to have hostile nutjobs open up with AP on you as you sit within a hairs breath of a known to be unstable 90mm precussion cap.
If you want something that big, it needs to have an unmanned turret and an autoloader. That would be a stryker MGS, which has died a death. Feck all good for recce though.

GoneToTheCanner

17th May 2012, 20:51

@aidan, funnily enough, those self same europeans got to face down fellow "europeans" (Serbians) who were very keen to use their tanks and were thrilled to find that the peaceniks hadn't brought any heavy ones with them. At least the Dutch managed to bring a few M109s and a few shells with them to redress the balance. It was rather embarrassing to find the Serbians using T-34s,M47s and T55s to intimidate the shit out of the good guys. Mladic managed to besiege Sarajevo with elderly Bofors, old Russian mortars and a handful of modern field guns for three years. Unsurprisingly, they failed to be intimidated by the good guys bearing 30mm. If I was in charge of the magic wand at DF HQ, I'd retire the AMl at once and buy something with a 105mm L7 and I'd compel the Df to bring their artillery the next time they go on tour.

regards
GttC

paul g

17th May 2012, 21:23

The Dutch fired TOW warning shots at Super Shermans during the Battle of At-Tiri.
The 30mm is as good for fire support as the 90mm in a modern conflict, and can keep more heads down. The AML 90 as a direct fire gun had a relatively limited range.
You are really into whataboutery now though.
Think of the combat history of the vehicle. I'd say the only combat kill the type saw, worldwide, was At Tiri. The Argies had them in 1982, they may have suited the Junta for intimidating its opressed population at home and in the falklands, but by june, they were parked up in Stanley, after being outflanked by the Superior mobility offroad of the Scorps and Scimitar of the Blues and Royals.
The gun was fine in the 50s, when nobody had things like thermal imaging, stabilised guns, smart ammo, active armour, and most importantly "dry" turrets. I imagine it is bad for one's blood pressure to have hostile nutjobs open up with AP on you as you sit within a hairs breath of a known to be unstable 90mm precussion cap.
If you want something that big, it needs to have an unmanned turret and an autoloader. That would be a stryker MGS, which has died a death. Feck all good for recce though.

the israelis bought some AML-90 in 1963, but retired them in 1968, mostly because they lacked any sort of capability against tanks and armour.

DeV

17th May 2012, 21:24

Think of the combat history of the vehicle. I'd say the only combat kill the type saw, worldwide, was At Tiri.

Given the amount of African countries that used the AML I doubt it.

I know it is Wikipedia but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_AML

Used in over 30 countries including in the Lebanese Civil War and in action in El Salvadora.

Also don't forget it was also made in South Africa and called the Eland, which was used in the Angolan Civil War and in Western Sahara

The only potential place recently that I can think of was Chad (in the unlikely scenario where the Sudan tried to push into eastern Chad using armour). It would have been highly unlikely that UNIFIL forces would have ever had to engage Israeli forces directly (other armed elements perhaps).

As Paul pointed out, most European countries don't figure on having to fight tanks and particularly modern ones in the open any time soon. That said, there is a potential role for a large caliber gun in terms of reducing fortifications and obstacles but that doesn't really justify such a purchase any time soon either. Short to medium term replacement for the AMLs is obviously more MRVs - long term, who knows?

now back in bosnia the canadians brought their cougar fire support vehicles, which was a mowag with a 76mm turret, except they found that in urban areas it was difficult to use as it lacked the accuracy to hit snipers and the like.

And while the Stryker MGS has had technical problems, another reasons for it not going into production is that commanders of units with MGS attached often opted for weapons systems that caused less damage in urban areas.

Now the brits are fighting a war in afghanistan, but they're using fire support groups with a gmg/hmg for supporting their infantry battalion, and haven't found it necessary to deploy any Challengers.

if people could get along to 30mm shoot, or see the GMG and heavy machine gun combination in action, they wouldn't want 90mm

Aidan

17th May 2012, 21:48

were thrilled to find that the peaceniks hadn't brought any heavy ones with them

Not quite true - it was a condition of access for the initial UNPROFOR troops that they couldn't be equiped with anything above .5. They were allowed bring some mortars and infantry anti armour weapons, but no direct fire weapons, hence no tanks and no IFVs. If they had been so equipped, they would have made a huge difference, particularly because the UN couldn't get out of it's own way in terms of clearing airstrikes on what were perfects valid targets, particularly in 92-93. Later UN forces (and NATO forces after that) brought everything up to MBTs. The French made plentyful use of their ERC-90s by all accounts, so the 90mm had its uses then too.

Also, if you really were worried about taking on tanks, would a 105mm gun (that's what, 50+ years old?) mounted on a wheeled afv really be your first port of call? Anything newer than a T-62 will really need 120mm, which is really pushing it on a wheeled mount. Strikes me as a better bet (for us at least) to deploy with allies that have 'proper' anti armour equipment, air cover, - and bring plenty of Javelins.

Goldie fish

18th May 2012, 00:49

How many of them were were involved in wars?

Many were. How many engaged enemy armour?

hptmurphy

18th May 2012, 01:12

h
is type of thread always degenerates into talk about the DF's need to engage with tanks,

Only a clown would willingly engage a tank without having a tank, any one who even contemplates it with out an MBT,Apache, or A 10 is out of their tiny ****ing mind

pym

18th May 2012, 02:15

Would there be a case for wiring a number of Piranha's in service for the Javelin?

GoneToTheCanner

18th May 2012, 10:30

@GF, the South Africans certainly did engage T-34/85s and T-54/55s, belonging to Angola and Mozambique, with their Elands/Ratels. I recall one photo of a T55 claimed to have been knocked out by an Eland. It was published in one of those weapons part-works popular in the 80s.

regards
GttC

GoneToTheCanner

18th May 2012, 10:32

Paul G, I recall a British soldier complaining on TV that the Scimitars in Bosnia were hampered by the Rarden's lack of punch against hardened targets and he wanted his old Scorpion back!

regards
GttC

Aidan

18th May 2012, 11:31

Only a clown would willingly engage a tank without having a tank, any one who even contemplates it with out an MBT,Apache, or A 10 is out of their tiny ****ing mind

Depends entirely on the situation, but there are a whole range of assets available to western powers now that are far better at the anti-armour role than (say) a 105mm gun on a wheeled chassis. Our nearest neighbours alone have found Brimstone to be an extremely effective weapon, along with Paveways and a certain Israeli sourced missile. There are far more ways to skin a cat now than there were in the 1980s.

paul g

18th May 2012, 14:50

Paul G, I recall a British soldier complaining on TV that the Scimitars in Bosnia were hampered by the Rarden's lack of punch against hardened targets and he wanted his old Scorpion back!

regards
GttC

Bosnia was a long time ago, and technology has improved vastly since then, missiles amd guided mortars are far far more reliablle today. And 30mm ammunition has improved.

hptmurphy

18th May 2012, 16:52

Our nearest neighbours alone have found Brimstone to be an extremely effective weapon, along with Paveways and a certain Israeli sourced missile. There are far more ways to skin a cat now than there were in the 1980s.

Alright in one off incidents but against multiple targets man portable missile are very very exposed and vunerable when engaging tanks.

Something like Hell fire can engage multiple targets at one time.

AML 90s were designed as direct fire support for recce teams withe ability to provide the potential to destroy light vehicles armoured or soft skinned and are not tank Destroyers.

Nor can they defend them selves or their crew against anything greater than a sling shot.

Warrior or Bradley are the way to go for tracked Infantry deployment, If Warriors gun was improved it would be better, Bradley has a good standoff capability, Mowag MRV would be on a par with Warrior but with a better gun, after that if you need the ability to defeat armour with a fair chance of surviving your into man portable weapons from an Irish perspective.

To my mind AMLs have no place in modern war fare. Given there is a given that the crew survivabilty is now as key to the fight as the ability to engage and knock out the enemy, AML 245 in any format just dosen't do this.

Goldie fish

18th May 2012, 16:55

Supporters of the AML(if there are any) as a useful fire support vehicle, should remember that it is less armoured and lesser powered than an LTAV.

GoneToTheCanner

18th May 2012, 18:36

I'd rather see them put out to grass and be replaced with a decent gun system, be it on a Mowag chassis or not. I'd also rather have a gun because the cost of buying and keeping Javelins and the like does not sit well with Finance, who are the real paymasters. The AMls are about as relevant as Fougas now.

regards
GttC

Herald

18th May 2012, 19:40

is there any argument to be made for retaining the turrets? and if so, could they be re-used on the Mowags?
I seem to recall these were upgraded some years back by the South Africans? or am i thinking that's the AML20's?

Goldie fish

18th May 2012, 20:07

is there any argument to be made for retaining the turrets? and if so, could they be re-used on the Mowags?
I seem to recall these were upgraded some years back by the South Africans? or am i thinking that's the AML20's?

None whatsoever.
The 90 was upgraded with a Laser rangefinder and Night vision sights ten years ago or more. Fine for shooting from a hide or a static position. Useless for firing on the run. Unpowered turret. Ever tried to track a target moving at 40km/h by hand cranking(apart from the fact the sighting system isn't designed to be fired on the move)? The upgrades brought a gun with 50s technology up to the 90s. Its still 20 year old technology.
It would be like taking a 4inch gun from the Navy Flower Corvettes built during WW2 , bolting a night sight onto it to replace the brass telescope, and sticking it on the front of the new Naval Vessel. Yeah its a great gun, but it makes a modern platform obsolete.

Herald

18th May 2012, 20:44

Thks Goldie,
Yeah it kinda cameback to me after I'd posted, the antiquity of the gun.

hptmurphy

18th May 2012, 23:07

Supporters of the AML(if there are any) as a useful fire support vehicle, should remember that it is less armoured and lesser powered than an LTAV.

and the 105mm arty piece and 120mm mortar are far more effective.

seem to recall these were upgraded some years back by the South Africans? or am i thinking that's the AML20's?

even the gun was wrong. NATO had published the optimum calibre was 25mm, we just continued on our own merry way.

GoneToTheCanner

19th May 2012, 02:12

was that the optimum calibre because Uncle Sam's ordnance people said so, or because the shell had good flight characteristics, a useful AP capability and a useful HE weight?

regards
GttC

hptmurphy

19th May 2012, 21:13

The optimum round would not be below 25mm, in calibre, probably badly phrased by me.But the report had been published before we had the turrets refurbished.

GoneToTheCanner

20th May 2012, 11:43

Would there have been any point in bringing another calibre into the supply system?

regards
GttC

hptmurphy

20th May 2012, 23:34

Ammo for the AML 20 has no commonality with the 20mm already in use with the NS and no one else in the DF was using 20mm at the time.

GoneToTheCanner

21st May 2012, 00:11

Oh, was it not a NATO-standard 20mm round then?

regards
GttC

hptmurphy

21st May 2012, 15:56

Really isn't a standard 20mm round

Might find this interesting

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/an_introduction_to_collecting_20.htm

paul g

21st May 2012, 17:02

The South africans had taken the AML's turret as a model when developing the Ratel in the 1970's,( after all SA licenced produced over 1000 AML-60/90) hence when the DF went shopping for an upgrade to the AML-60, they chose the south african upgrade based upon the Ratel 20 Turret because was the cheapest and simplest option.

Fitting another turret with a heavier calibre gun, like the photos rhodes has posted in another thread of trials in the 1980's, would probably have made the vehicle very top heavy, the rarden turret trialed would have resulted in a vehicle similar to the FOX which the british produced and was by all accounts a death trap.

GoneToTheCanner

21st May 2012, 17:19

Jesus wept, Murph! Who'd be a storeman!? It'd be fun and games to get yizzer 20mm mixed up on the battlefield. Did the NS run the old Oerlikon and the Rhinos at the same time?

regards
GttC

Goldie fish

21st May 2012, 18:08

I remember the Hughes Bushmaster 25mm Chain Gun was also trialled when a replacement for the AML60 main armament was being considered.

andy

21st May 2012, 19:23

Cav is 105mm and MBT is 120mm .. anything less than 105mm for the new cav vehicle is a waste of time.

hptmurphy

21st May 2012, 22:01

Yep PVs had the Oerlikons while the Eithne had Rhinos and then to complicate matters the GamBo was purchased...and the Deirdre had .5's .

And just checkeing with some empty shell casings I have from the AML 20s..guess what the website has a mistake as the Shellcasing I have are unusually stamped on the side and marked T PT 20/90 M649...Target practice trace 20mm calibre lenght of barrel 90 calibres, but it bears no relationship to the ammo pictured and dosen't have a bottle neck but is more in line with Oerlikon ammo.

Now from memory I was in the curragh magazine when the Gambos were entering service, and there was no shortage of the older 20mm stuff, and on one occassion in 1986 we took a brand new oerlikon from stores, still its its packing grease, but within 6 months the type was gone from service.

Guns and ammo weren't the problem, magazines were with the springs starting to give trouble...181 parts to remember was a bit of a night mare.

Any way back to AMLs.

Picked this up from a south african perspective on the AML 90

Anti-tank capabilities
The low-velocity 90 mm gun, a license-made copy of the 1950s-vintage French GIAT F1, is very accurate out to 2 km range. It is generally considered to be inadequate for facing modern main battle tanks, but it is quite capable against armored personnel carriers or other lighter AFVs, unarmored vehicles, exposed infantry, and buildings or entrenchments. The 90 mm gun cannot be fired from a moving Ratel because the fire-control system is decidedly primitive and not stabilised; the turret and gun are manually traversed.

On the rare occasions when SADF Ratels encountered enemy armor, such as the Soviet-made tanks encountered in Operation Protea (1981) and Operations Modular, Hooper, and Packer in 1988, they achieved successes through maneuverability and only at very short ranges. The 61 Mechanised Infantry Battalion Group found that each enemy T-55 and T-62 required multiple shots from the 90 mm guns to disable it, and that the SADF vehicles had to attack in groups, fire from point-blank range, and hit the tanks in the engine vents, turret rim, or similar weak points in order to have an effect, the 90 mm shells being otherwise ineffective against the Soviet tanks' armour. For this reason, the SADF's Olifants tanks were considerably more effective against enemy armour than Ratels, Elands, or other vehicles.

Sums up the capabilities and deficiencies of the 90mm F 1 gun

GoneToTheCanner

21st May 2012, 22:26

You could substitute Sherman for AML and Tiger for T-55 and go back in time to 1944............so were any of the old Oerlikons preserved?

regards
GttC

hptmurphy

21st May 2012, 23:03

so were any of the old Oerlikons preserved?

Have no idea. What do the DF do with functional weapons like this when removed from service....?

yellow oscar

21st May 2012, 23:20

Chop them up as scrap like all the Tpt

DeV

22nd May 2012, 11:55

Cav is 105mm and MBT is 120mm .. anything less than 105mm for the new cav vehicle is a waste of time.Depends what you want it to do!?

Sums up the capabilities and deficiencies of the 90mm F 1 gun
And the smaller harder to hit AML

Connaught Stranger

22nd May 2012, 14:51

Thought you might like to see this:-

6681 6682

Not in my collection, found online, possibly French or South African origin.

Connaught Stranger.

Goldie fish

22nd May 2012, 18:36

Depends what you want it to do!?

And the smaller harder to hit AML

Quite easy to hit. Ask anyone in cav who used them as a target for a shoot in the last 10 years.

DeV

22nd May 2012, 18:59

Quite easy to hit. Ask anyone in cav who used them as a target for a shoot in the last 10 years.

While both target and firer are moving?

Goldie fish

22nd May 2012, 19:02

Neither.
The AML can't engage a moving target while on the move. Anyone engaging it will more than likely find it doing overwatch in a static position. If its on th emove, it's running away, and no longer a threat worth engaging, once it goes beyond 2000m.

When you make such short posts with a quote, it is impossible to read your mind to establish the type of scenario you had in mind.

hptmurphy

22nd May 2012, 22:52

And the smaller harder to hit AML

Don't even have to hit as a near miss would pepper the car with shrapnel and kill the crew.

GoneToTheCanner

23rd May 2012, 20:49

Connacht, that attachment doesn't open.

regards
GttC

Connaught Stranger

23rd May 2012, 21:02

Connacht, that attachment doesn't open.

regards
GttC

Try it now, I think I fixed it.

hptmurphy

23rd May 2012, 23:03

Try it now, I think I fixed it.

Gucci or what...Imagine what the 11th Cav would have done with that...would have made it into a medal for AML drivers!!

DeV

5th July 2012, 14:00

The company that got the spares contract, Sofema, have a few interesting offerings.

Goldie fish

5th July 2012, 14:06

Such as?

DeV

5th July 2012, 14:44

Vbc90

UniSol

5th July 2012, 15:26

Gucci or what...Imagine what the 11th Cav would have done with that...would have made it into a medal for AML drivers!!

I wish! We could do with medals for piloting AMLs through the city centre with questionable brakes and no power steering :eek:

Truck Driver

10th August 2012, 22:23

Here's one I baked earlier.... Panhard AML90 at an Armoured Corps museum I visited in Israel recently....

The one I saw was used by the IDF during the Six Day War in 1967

Party Hats (former and current) would have a boner going around this place, it's excellent...

My fellow Facebookers will be able to see the full set of pictures in the near future when I get a chance to load them up...